Interfering with a 1NT bid

[luke warm]

hi buff, welcome to the forums... i'd like to see a hand or two where your methods are used, cause i frankly see no difference in that and in what i play

[Free]

Well Jimmy, his ♦ overcall is MUCH better that the way you have to show ♦... The Jimmy-Dbl B) can be almost anything, in Bridgebuff's system it's 2 suits out of 3: ♦, ♥ and ♠, so it's a lot better imo. With a sure fit, you can do whatever you want :)

Still, the 2♣ bid is not great as I told before, P/C for 3 suits isn't the best way to play it. However, I like it (if you bid singlesuiters with 5 card suits) :)

[luke warm]

maybe, maybe not

 

post a hand where the methods shown are used...

[BridgeBuff]

I use it a lot with my favorite partner, with nothing but good results. I can't think of a specific hand (except an outrageous one where we landed in an undoubled 4♠ on a 4=5 fit, found by no-one else, when the opps were thoroughly confused), but it seems to me the strengths are these:

 

You can bid one-suiters naturally (except clubs) and even the 2♣ bid includes clubs so it is naturalish too.

 

The X permits partner to bounce or compete any time he has a guaranteed fit (he needs two of ♦,♥,♠, and of course he bids the lower ranked suit, pass or correct). He might bid 3♥ with say Kxxx/QJxx/xxx/xx and if overcaller holds QJxxx/x/KQxxx/xx he corrects to 3♠.

 

After X, if responder passes, partner can show a good hand, guaranteed fit, with 2♣, and the pass-correct investigation is underway.

 

Overcaller's hands can vary from the likes of QJTxx/QJTxx/x/xx to much stronger. Loss of a penalty X comes at some cost, but the treatment can be used with any strong NTish overcalls (except 4=3=3=3). You could X with say AKxx/AKxx/Kxx/xx. Also partner is free to leave the X in, if his hand is suitable.

 

It is also good fun.

[luke warm]

fun is important, that's one reason i like the structure i showed... i'd still like to see a couple of hands tho, just because i'd like to see how i'd bid them vs. how the other system would

[Fluffy]

This topic has been discused many times on amny topics.

I am quite bored about same question, everyone posts his own methods, but nobody has real proof or a solid argument about what is best, so I´ve begun to think that the best convention should be the one for wich opponents haven´t talked about the defence :)

[luke warm]

the reason is, nobody wants to post the overcaller's and advancer's hands...

[Free]

the reason is, nobody wants to post the overcaller's and advancer's hands...

So why don't you give any??? :D

[BridgeBuff]

I haven't been here long enough to be bored by it, but Fluffy raises a good point. Why not use the expertise on this forum to develop a killer defence, if one exists? What are the objectives? Would they be

 

(1) ability to show a 1-suiter, efficiently

(2) ability to show a 2-suiter, efficiently

(3) ability to show specifically both majors

(4) ability to show an equal-strength balanced hand

(5) the system should be difficult to defend

(6) pre-emption is good

 

Are there others? Are they equally important? What would you be willing to give up? If you don't care about (2) and (3), then bidding 'naturally' might be optimum. If you can give up (4) against a strong NT, that frees up Double for something useful.

 

The simple system I described permits (1) very efficiently except for clubs (2♦, 2♥, 2♠ all natural), (2) and (3) are covered with X and 2♣ (although not specifically, needing pass/correct), (4) it gives up on, so play something else against weak NTs, (5) there is no obvious cuebid for the defenders, but the X can be pre-empted, so this is a defect, (6) the 2-suited bids are not at all preemptive, but a natural 2♥ and 2♠ are.

 

With any system you must compromise. I loathe Capp because you cannot naturally bid a 1-suited major, the 2♣ bid is easily pre-empted, the 2♦ bid provides 2 cuebids, the major-suit bids are awkward forcing to the 3-level for the minor.

 

Against a weak NT I use Becker? (2♣ = minors, 2♦ = majors) for simplicity because I can keep 2♥ and 2♠ naturally and need X for penalty. It was freeing up the X against strong notrumpers that led to the simple system I described.

 

I love it when they use Capp against my weak NT because it is so easily coped with.

[luke warm]

the reason is, nobody wants to post the overcaller's and advancer's hands...

So why don't you give any??? :D

because i haven't made any claims as to superiority... all i've said is that i'd have to see how meckwell (for example) bids a hand, and let *you* judge what's lost vs. the system i showed

 

others have said that what i like is inferior, so i think i'm right to ask to be shown... if you really believe meckwell is better, post 2 or 3 overcaller/advancer hands and let's compare

[luke warm]

I haven't been here long enough to be bored by it, but Fluffy raises a good point. Why not use the expertise on this forum to develop a killer defence, if one exists? What are the objectives? Would they be

 

(1) ability to show a 1-suiter, efficiently

(2) ability to show a 2-suiter, efficiently

(3) ability to show specifically both majors

(4) ability to show an equal-strength balanced hand

(5) the system should be difficult to defend

(6) pre-emption is good

 

Are there others? Are they equally important? What would you be willing to give up? If you don't care about (2) and (3), then bidding 'naturally' might be optimum. If you can give up (4) against a strong NT, that frees up Double for something useful.

 

The simple system I described permits (1) very efficiently except for clubs (2♦, 2♥, 2♠ all natural), (2) and (3) are covered with X and 2♣ (although not specifically, needing pass/correct), (4) it gives up on, so play something else against weak NTs, (5) there is no obvious cuebid for the defenders, but the X can be pre-empted, so this is a defect, (6) the 2-suited bids are not at all preemptive, but a natural 2♥ and 2♠ are.

 

With any system you must compromise. I loathe Capp because you cannot naturally bid a 1-suited major, the 2♣ bid is easily pre-empted, the 2♦ bid provides 2 cuebids, the major-suit bids are awkward forcing to the 3-level for the minor.

 

Against a weak NT I use Becker? (2♣ =  minors, 2♦ = majors) for simplicity because I can keep 2♥ and 2♠ naturally and need X for penalty. It was freeing up the X against strong notrumpers that led to the simple system I described.

 

I love it when they use Capp against my weak NT because it is so easily coped with.

agree with you on capp vs. my mini (or weak)... i don't even mind the x since the escapes are fairly nice... taking your criteria:

 

(1) ability to show a 1-suiter, efficiently

(2) ability to show a 2-suiter, efficiently

(3) ability to show specifically both majors

 

the treatment i described shows all of these... i think it does so efficiently, tho others might not agree

 

(4) ability to show an equal-strength balanced hand

 

i can't do this one :D ... as against that, i can show 3 suited hands both with and without spades (for whatever that's worth)

 

(5) the system should be difficult to defend

(6) pre-emption is good

 

i believe it conforms to both of these, but (as i said) others might disagree

[jtfanclub]

(1) ability to show a 1-suiter, efficiently

(2) ability to show a 2-suiter, efficiently

(3) ability to show specifically both majors

(4) ability to show an equal-strength balanced hand

(5) the system should be difficult to defend

(6) pre-emption is good

 

Are there others? Are they equally important? What would you be willing to give up? If you don't care about (2) and (3), then bidding 'naturally' might be optimum. If you can give up (4) against a strong NT, that frees up Double for something useful.

 

The simple system I described permits (1) very efficiently except for clubs (2♦, 2♥, 2♠ all natural), (2) and (3) are covered with X and 2♣ (although not specifically, needing pass/correct), (4) it gives up on, so play something else against weak NTs, (5) there is no obvious cuebid for the defenders, but the X can be pre-empted, so this is a defect, (6) the 2-suited bids are not at all preemptive, but a natural 2♥ and 2♠ are.

 

With any system you must compromise. I loathe Capp because you cannot naturally bid a 1-suited major, the 2♣ bid is easily pre-empted, the 2♦ bid provides 2 cuebids, the major-suit bids are awkward forcing to the 3-level for the minor.

 

Against a weak NT I use Becker? (2♣ = minors, 2♦ = majors) for simplicity because I can keep 2♥ and 2♠ naturally and need X for penalty. It was freeing up the X against strong notrumpers that led to the simple system I described.

 

I love it when they use Capp against my weak NT because it is so easily coped with.

(1) ability to show a 1-suiter, efficiently

(2) ability to show a 2-suiter, efficiently

(2.5) ability to show a 3-suiter, efficiently.

(3) ability to show specifically both majors

(3.5) Ability to show specifically both minors, since that's the hand that they're most likely to have a game against.

(4) ability to show an equal-strength balanced hand

(4.5) Ability to show an equal-strength unbalanced hand, particularly one willing to compete to game with a fit.

(5) the system should be difficult to defend

(6) pre-emption is good

(7) Ability for partner to pass responder's bid, putting pressure on the opponents immediately.

(8) Ability to find out sufficient information at the 2 level to stop there when necessary.

(9) Does not reveal too much information to the opponents when you end up defending.

(10) You don't die in screaming horrible agony when you or your partner forgets it

 

I like Brozel because:

+1. It shows one suiters efficiently.

+2. It shows 2 suiters efficiently.

-2.5 It does not show 3 suiters.

+3 It shows both majors.

+3.5 It shows both minors.

-4. It does not have a way of showing an equal strength balanced hand.

-4.5 It does not have a way of showing an equal strength unbalanced hand.

-5. It is reasonably difficult to defend, though there's no tricks.

-6. No serious attempt to pre-empt.

+7 Ability to pass responder's bid.

+8 Never goes above 3D unless overcaller's partner decides to.

+9 Tends not to reveal too much about the other suits- they could be 3-2, or 3-0.

+10 If I forget it, or use it when I shouldn't, nothing horrible happens. Partner simply knows about only one suit, or passes my single suited double- not always a bad choice.

 

Anyhow, that's my list.

[Free]

It's better to pass with 3-suited hands (unless it's constructive against strong NT) imo, since no suit will split nicely for opps...

[luke warm]

It's better to pass with 3-suited hands (unless it's constructive against strong NT) imo, since no suit will split nicely for opps...

funny you should say that, i'm thinking of putting 2C in as 3 suited with clubs and using frelling type 2D, H, S... btw, the 2C bid is weakish since i think that hand type plays decent defensively

 

matter of fact i think i'll go ahead and post the opening bids i've come up with (with help from mikestar and others) in another thread

[Free]

Meckwell (vs Strong NT):

(1) ability to show a 1-suiter, efficiently :)

2M natural, both minor suits can be bid by Dbl

 

(2) ability to show a 2-suiter, efficiently :)

2m = 44+ m and a Major, both Majors go through Dbl (we have time with both Majors imo)

 

(2.5) ability to show a 3-suiter, efficiently. :D

No need

 

(3) ability to show specifically both majors :)

Dbl and show them later

 

(3.5) Ability to show specifically both minors, since that's the hand that they're most likely to have a game against. :(

Some include both minors in the 2♣ bid, but pure Meckwell doesn't! 2NT bid is the alternative, but need to play at 3-level.

 

(4) ability to show an equal-strength balanced hand :)

No need

 

(4.5) Ability to show an equal-strength unbalanced hand, particularly one willing to compete to game with a fit. :)

Dbl followed by 2♠ and higher, works for singlesuited hands

2NT followed by another bid, works with twosuited hands (but not standard I think)

 

(5) the system should be difficult to defend :(

Natural bids are easy to defend against, all 2-level bids show 4+ cards... So not that difficult to defend against

 

(6) pre-emption is good :unsure:

Preemption is poor after a Dbl, since you don't know what overcaller has. After any other bid it's quite good.

 

(7) Ability for partner to pass responder's bid, putting pressure on the opponents immediately. :D

With heavy hands he can pass the Dbl (very rare however), all 2-level bids are natural 4+ cards, so passable

 

(8) Ability to find out sufficient information at the 2 level to stop there when necessary. :D

P/C bids, you know the drill

 

(9) Does not reveal too much information to the opponents when you end up defending. :unsure:

Since you can bid 2M with a 2-suited hand (poor second suit), you can hide stuff. After 2m declarer knows you have 4+ card in one Major. After the Dbl he doesn't know what you have, but after your lead it might be clear...

 

(10) You don't die in screaming horrible agony when you or your partner forgets it :D

No

[pclayton]

I haven't been here long enough to be bored by it, but Fluffy raises a good point. Why not use the expertise on this forum to develop a killer defence, if one exists? What are the objectives? Would they be

 

(1) ability to show a 1-suiter, efficiently

(2) ability to show a 2-suiter, efficiently

(3) ability to show specifically both majors

(4) ability to show an equal-strength balanced hand

(5) the system should be difficult to defend

(6) pre-emption is good

 

Are there others? Are they equally important? What would you be willing to give up? If you don't care about (2) and (3), then bidding 'naturally' might be optimum. If you can give up (4) against a strong NT, that frees up Double for something useful.

 

The simple system I described permits (1) very efficiently except for clubs (2♦, 2♥, 2♠ all natural), (2) and (3) are covered with X and 2♣ (although not specifically, needing pass/correct), (4) it gives up on, so play something else against weak NTs, (5) there is no obvious cuebid for the defenders, but the X can be pre-empted, so this is a defect, (6) the 2-suited bids are not at all preemptive, but a natural 2♥ and 2♠ are.

 

With any system you must compromise. I loathe Capp because you cannot naturally bid a 1-suited major, the 2♣ bid is easily pre-empted, the 2♦ bid provides 2 cuebids, the major-suit bids are awkward forcing to the 3-level for the minor.

 

Against a weak NT I use Becker? (2♣ = minors, 2♦ = majors) for simplicity because I can keep 2♥ and 2♠ naturally and need X for penalty. It was freeing up the X against strong notrumpers that led to the simple system I described.

 

I love it when they use Capp against my weak NT because it is so easily coped with.

Well, I'll tell you why I like Woolsey (scroll earlier to see what it is).

 

I don't think anyone that participates in this forum disagrees that modern bridge theory is to actively interfere with their strong 1N opener.

 

If we are choosing to jam with hands lite distributional hands, it is paramount that we arrive quickly in our best fit. These calls are not meant for constructive bidding, the actions are 90% destuctive by nature.

 

For me, its not just important to show different hand patterns, its also important to differentiate between respective suit lengths. Playing Woolsey, we can always fish out if partner has a longer minor than major and v.v.. Most other methods posted here do not.

 

Many posters like Meckwell, because it allows you to show a single minor suiter. I think the value of this is overrated, since dbl and 2C really doesn't create any action, and over a Meckwell dbl, responder doesn't know if overcaller has ♣ or ♦ or (unlikely) the majors. If you want to jam them with a single minor suiter, a jump overcall is more effective.